Lee K. Ferrier

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order upholding a Master's decision to set aside a previous order dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The action had been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to post security for costs.

The court found that while there were conflicting decisions regarding the application of Rule 37.14(1)(a), it was not desirable to grant leave to appeal in this case due to its specific circumstances, including the plaintiffs being unrepresented foreign residents at the time of the dismissal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The union brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the employer in a pending application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The affidavit, sworn by the employer's counsel, alleged that the arbitrator's award misstated the employer's admissions and submissions regarding the purpose of a layoff notice provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit fell within the narrow exception permitting extrinsic evidence on judicial review to show a complete absence of evidence for a factual finding or a breach of natural justice.

The court held that binding the employer to admissions or positions it did not take would produce a denial of natural justice.

The appellant, a former Justice of the Peace, appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action against a Ministry employee.

The appellant sought reimbursement for legal expenses incurred defending sexual assault charges, claiming judicial immunity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the action was an abuse of process, frivolous, vexatious, and barred by the limitation period, as the cause of action arose in 1999 when he first sought reimbursement.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of her appeal and a motion to stay her eviction and permit re-entry.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court dismissed the tenant's motion to set aside the dismissal, noting that the eviction was lawful and the basement apartment she occupied was illegal under city bylaws.

The landlord had already removed the kitchen to comply with city requirements, making re-occupation impossible.

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed as moot, and the landlord's motion to quash was withdrawn.

Costs were awarded to the landlord.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to vary an order refusing leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had dismissed an appeal regarding minor variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge applied the correct test and did not decline jurisdiction.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but declined to order substantial indemnity costs despite the moving party's unfounded allegations of false evidence.

The applicant, a police officer, brought an application for judicial review to prohibit a retired superintendent from continuing as an adjudicator in a disciplinary proceeding against him.

The adjudicator had previously presided over two other disciplinary hearings involving the applicant and had expressed opinions regarding his character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that an informed person would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the adjudicator's pre-existing knowledge of the applicant's disciplinary history.

The applicants sought relief under the Arbitration Act and judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to challenge an arbitrator's award.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, as such applications must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court also held that judicial review is a public law remedy unavailable to challenge a private consensual arbitrator's award.

The application for judicial review was quashed, and the remaining relief was referred to the Superior Court.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they breached securities laws and acted contrary to the public interest.

The Commission found that the appellant Rowan failed to file insider reports, traded during blackout periods, and failed to disclose his control over certain trust accounts.

The Commission also found that the other appellants failed to adequately supervise Rowan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Commission's interpretation of 'control or direction' under the Securities Act, its public interest findings, or its imposition of administrative monetary penalties.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring the applicant and Metro Waste Paper Recovery Inc. to be related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued the Board erred by applying s. 1(4) without first determining the 'true' employer and by exercising its discretion without identifying labour relations mischief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, fact-driven, and within its specialized expertise.

The Board properly identified that a single employer declaration would undermine collective bargaining rights and create an unviable bargaining structure.

The applicant association sought interim declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the respondent regulatory college from enacting a proposed by-law for a compulsory insurance program.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, holding that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented and the matter should run its course before the college prior to any judicial review.

No costs were awarded due to the college's procedural missteps.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action against a hospital.

The appellants had sued the hospital for failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of their family member, claiming emotional harm.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding the action was an abuse of process because the claims could have been raised in a prior, time-barred Superior Court action.

The Court also held the action was statute-barred, rejecting the argument that the hospital's ongoing failure to provide information constituted a continuing contravention that extended the limitation period.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary or set aside a decision of Swinton J., which had dismissed their motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

Swinton J. had dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata, as Jennings J. had previously dismissed a motion seeking the same relief.

The Divisional Court agreed with Swinton J. that she was bound by the decision of Jennings J., and that the proper recourse was to appeal or move to vary the decision of Jennings J., rather than bringing another motion before a different judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant, a law student, was expelled from the University of Western Ontario following a series of disturbing behaviours and a threatening Facebook post directed at a fellow student.

He sought judicial review of the University Discipline Appeal Committee's decision upholding his expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was barred by unexplained delay.

On the merits, the court held that the applicant's Facebook post was not protected by the Charter right to free speech, the university's procedures were fair, and the Code of Student Conduct reasonably applied to off-campus conduct that adversely affected the university environment.

The Working Facilities Coalition and Laura Miller, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, brought a motion to intervene in the application between the PC Ontario Fund and the Chief Electoral Officer.

The court granted the intervention and issued an order based on a revised draft.

The court denied a request for cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of the motion to intervene, applied the usual costs provisions for interveners, and refused to limit the intervening party's appeal rights.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for failing to comply with a consent order to post $200,000 in security for costs.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal, alleging the respondents' counsel was in a conflict of interest.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the delay and the discrete legal issue on appeal.

On the merits, the court upheld the Master's finding that under Form 56A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an order for security for costs requires payment in cash unless the order specifies another form of security.

The appellants' attempt to file a late, foreign letter of credit covering only one plaintiff was insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to dismiss the responding party's judicial review application on the ground of delay.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, holding that while a single judge has jurisdiction to dismiss for delay in clear cases, the equitable and discretionary nature of judicial review generally requires that the issue of delay be determined by the full panel hearing the application on its merits.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the moving party's right to raise the delay argument before the panel.

The plaintiff commenced an action against a paving company for breach of contract regarding defective pavement.

Years later, the plaintiff discovered a concealed engineering report revealing that the original design specifications provided by an engineering firm were deficient.

The plaintiff successfully moved to add the engineering firm as a defendant.

The engineering firm appealed, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the discoverability rule applies to the 12-month limitation period under s. 46(1) of the former Professional Engineers Act, meaning the limitation period did not begin until the plaintiff discovered the report.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that it was a 'builder' under the applicable consumer protection legislation.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not using a quantitative analysis of the work and materials supplied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's preference for a qualitative or functional test over a quantitative test was not an error of law.

The Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant had primary control of the construction and was therefore a builder was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Labour Arbitrator's decision interpreting a collective agreement provision on protective clothing.

The employer required metatarsal safety boots, which the union argued constituted an 'exceptional' working condition obligating the employer to provide them.

The Arbitrator found the requirement was merely an enhanced safety policy, not an exceptional working condition.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Dunsmuir, the Divisional Court held that the Arbitrator's contextual interpretation fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant was successful on appeal, which resulted in an order for a new trial due to the trial judge's inadequate reasons.

The appellant sought costs for both the appeal and the first trial.

The Divisional Court awarded the appellant $15,000 in costs for the appeal, noting the issues were not complex.

However, because the need for a new trial was not the respondents' fault, the court ordered that the appeal costs not be payable until the completion of the second trial, and that the costs of the first trial be in the cause.